Laserfiche WebLink
161 <br /> <br /> The property owners approached Mr. Baker, their local <br />.... representative, about this problem. Mr. Baker agreed with the <br /> property owners and introduced this bill. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer asked Mr. Roush if there should be any impact on <br /> the City of Pleasanton from this bill. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush explained that there would not be any fiscal impact. <br /> There could be the perception that this type of bill takes the <br /> decision making authority from the local agency (City, County, <br /> LAFCO) and places it in the hands of the State Legislature. If the <br /> legislation is as narrowly drawn as indicated, then it should not <br /> have any impact beyond the facts of the Ridgeland circumstances. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked if that assumes that everyone would follow <br /> the rules and understand that spheres of influence could not be <br /> drawn back in order to detach areas that weren't planned to be <br /> serviced. He did not support this bill. He felt that there were <br /> better ways of resolving conflicts between communities than asking <br /> the Legislation to intervene. He felt that the City of Hayward was <br /> protecting its best interest and the property owners have tried to <br /> protect their interests. This bill sets a precedent and should not <br /> be supported. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer felt that the bill is very specific and would not <br /> impact the City of Pleasanton. He commented that this was a group <br /> of citizens who are forced to be in a sphere of influence of a <br /> community that provides no services and they cannot get out of the <br /> sphere of influence. Mayor Mercer supported this bill. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler was concerned about the precedent that could be set <br /> by approving this bill. He wanted this issue resolved in a way <br /> that removed Hayward's jurisdiction off of the ridge. He felt this <br /> bill corrected the mistake that was made many years ago. Mr. <br /> Butler supported the bill and believed that this would solve the <br /> problem for these residents. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr agreed with Mr. Butler's comments. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner was also concerned that this bill could set a <br /> precedent. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer indicated that this item was to be discussed at <br /> the next East Bay Division of the League of California Cities <br /> meeting. He askedMr. Tarver if a letter needed to be given to the <br /> League of California Cities to indicate the City of Pleasanton's <br /> support of this bill. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated that he would vote in the same way this <br /> Council had voted, however, he would speak in opposition to the <br /> bill at the East Bay Division meeting. He agreed that a letter <br /> should be given to the League. <br /> <br /> 3/17/92 19 <br /> <br /> <br />